Delhi High Court - Orders
Saroj Tandon vs New Delhi Municipal Council And Ors on 2 May, 2022
Author: Vipin Sanghi
Bench: Navin Chawla, Vipin Sanghi
$~23
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6815/2022
SAROJ TANDON
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.M.A. Niyazi, Ms.Anamika Ghai,
Ms.Kirti Jaswal & Ms.Nehmat Sethi,
Advs.
versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ORS
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Arjun Mitra & Ms.Jaskaran Kaur,
Advs. for R-1.
Mr.Chetan Sharma, Additional
Solicitor General & Mr.Santosh
Kumar Pandey, Sr. Panel Counsel for
UOI with Mr.Amit Gupta, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
ORDER
% 02.05.2022 CM APPL. 20683/2022 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 6815/2022 & CM APPL. 20682/2022
1. Issue notice. Learned counsels mentioned hereinabove accept notice on behalf of the respondents. Let counter affidavits be filed within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.
2. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present petition is with regard to the manner in which the respondent/NDMC is fixing the Rateable Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA Signing Date:04.05.2022 18:30:36 Value of similarly situated shops in Khan Market, New Delhi. The submission of the petitioner is that practically all the shops in the said market are of the same area, however, the respondent no. 1 has been fixing the Rateable Value ranging from Rs. 600/- to Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. Moreover, the respondent no. 1 is adopting two methods for fixation of the Rateable Value, namely, under Section 63 of the NDMC Act, 1994 and also under the Unit Area Method, which has been struck down qua the NDMC area.
3. The issues raised by the petitioner displays an alarming state of affairs prevailing with regard to the fixation of Rateable Value in the Khan Market area. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar is the situation in Connaught Place area as well. Such disparity in fixation of Rateable Value in respect of similarly situated properties, prima facie, appears to be arbitrary and discriminatory and, we dare say, would lead to corrupt practices.
4. We, therefore, direct the respondents to file detailed counter affidavits explaining the aforesaid aspect within four weeks. No further time shall be granted for the same.
5. In the meantime, we stay the notice issued to the petitioner proposing to increase the Rateable Value from Rs.64,80,000/- to Rs. 98,26,300/- qua the petitioner's property and we also stay the operation of the Assessment Order dated 09.11.2021, subject to the petitioner clearing arrears of property tax on the basis of the rent realised by the petitioner from her tenant under the registered Lease Agreement. The arrears be deposited by the petitioner without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties within the next thirty days. The claim for rebate, if any, of the petitioner, will be examined later.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA Signing Date:04.05.2022 18:30:366. List on 27th July, 2022.
VIPIN SANGHI, ACJ NAVIN CHAWLA, J MAY 2, 2022/rv/U. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHALOO BATRA Signing Date:04.05.2022 18:30:36